Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

1. NH_GOP
   

   October 27th, 2007 at 4:10 am

   This is ridiculous. To ban someone;s supporters just because he is the most popular candidate on the web, but they don’t happen to like is about as juvenile as Pajamas removing him from their poll because he always won it.

   It’s called sour grapes.
   But then again the mentality of these guys who run these sites tells me they are about 12 years old right? How old are you?

   If it weren’t for Ron, those sites would be UNKNOWNS in the blogosphere. No one ever heard of RedState and its 15 mins of fame, given to it because it did something ’sensational’ to ban the most beloved man on the internet, is now up.

   The ‘discourse’ was too much for them to handle I guess. I have never seen Paul supporters ‘hijack’ a thread, which means they change the subject of the conversation. But I have seen them dominate because well frankly, there are more of them than any of the others on the internet.

   Also Paul supporters are among the most intelligent and informed and this old dog has worked on many a campaign here in NH so she knows.

   Tsk tsk.. no good business turns away customers.

2. John Howard
   

   October 27th, 2007 at 9:22 am

   It is amazing to read that a discussion forum can be “ruined” by discussion. There appear to be many people who just can’t stand that other people have different opinions and styles than they do. It is difficult to imagine a task easier than ignoring online writers and comments that you don’t like. Why, then, all the concern with “protecting” forums from certain kinds of comments? It strikes me as nothing more than rationalizing the hunger to censor - which is the hunger to punish those who disagree.

   The truth is that Ron Paul supporters, on average, are not more rude or disrespectful than anyone else’s supporters. What is annoying about them is their sheer numbers. In other words, what is annoying the little censors is that Ron Paul is so popular.

3. Krempasky
   

   October 27th, 2007 at 11:13 am

   “The truth is that Ron Paul supporters, on average, are not more rude or disrespectful than anyone else’s supporters. What is annoying about them is their sheer numbers.”

   Huh? Pardon me, but not so much. Go follow them for a bit. And as far as the notion that you can’t ruin a discussion forum with “discussion” gives a remarkable (and undeserved) amount of credit to the nutjobs. Trust me, it’s like trying to have a meeting when a scraggly homeless guy runs into your conference room and pees in the corner.

4. John Howard
   

   October 27th, 2007 at 5:48 pm

   Someone peeing in your presense is not the same as someone typing what you say you don’t want to read (but do anyway - contradiction yours). You are lost in metaphorical reasoning. Having first made a metaphor that your choice to read is like you not having a choice, you then reason that you should interfere with the choice to write of those you have chosen to read. A typed forum is not a conference room. The difference is relevent to your silly argument.

   The simple truth is that you want to shut people up who dare to say what you don’t agree with. Wrapping that ignoble motive in twisted metaphorical reasoning doesn’t really change its nature.

   It is a plain lie to say that an online forum can be “disrupted” or “ruined” by someone typing what you don’t have to read. “Trust me”, it isn’t at all like someone peeing in your little corner. Compare the two side by side and see for yourself.

   Nothing is easier than ignoring an online moron. Censoring online morons is only popular among other online morons.

5. Todd Zeigler
   

   October 27th, 2007 at 6:06 pm

   John - thanks for your comments but I repectfully disagree.

   If RedState has a thread on say the Democratic Congress, it is not healthy for the discussion to have folks ignoring the topic and pushing Ron Paul. Readers and commenters don’t want to have to wade through a sea of off topic comments to get to the meat of the discussion. It is spam basically and disrupts the conversation.

   It is also important to note that RedState is banning the “shills.” Ron Paul supporters who participate in the community in a positive way are not impacted.

   It is a fair policy.

6. Robert
   

   October 27th, 2007 at 6:46 pm

   Are Paul supporters really so delusional that they think they are contributing to the discussion?

   I’d have a lot more respect for the Paul folks if they just admitted that they are spammers and said, too bad dude, it’s working.

7. Marc Scott Emery
   

   October 27th, 2007 at 7:31 pm

   I’m with this guy — to a point.

   An online community is a chummy comfortable place for “regulars” with a common ’sense-of-life’ to the world. Its like Cheers. Anyone who is anybody knows your name. Everyone likes the chummy community of common values just fine.

   Then a whole bunch of out of towners descend on the community and create discord because these out of towners all belong to the same cult and their paradign or sense-of-life is distinctly at odds with the “permanent residents”.

   The locals are all bent out of shape. If things don’t get back to normal, they’ll go elsewhere!

   And then admins make decisions and voila, Tucker Carlson is talking way more about Ron Paul as a consequence and everyone is happy! Ron Paul got lots of excellent MSNBC publicity for 5 minutes, REDSTATE got legitimaized in the MSM, what more could a blogger site ask for?

   Thats the point I take issue with banning issues on the basis of subject or affiliation.

   Ron Paul people make way more sense than supporters of every other Republican candidate. And why can Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Thompson only get puny crowds on the campaign? It seems to me the neo-con supporters in the Republican Party are under seige by the next wave in Republicanism, and we are seeing it played out in its early stages online, where all political trends happen first.

8. John Howard
   

   October 28th, 2007 at 10:58 pm

   Spam means one sender sending to many receivers. Now the tin-foil hat anti-paul loonies have reversed the definition by claiming that many senders sending to one wacky blogger is “spam”.

   Arguing that “readers and commenters don’t want to have to wade through a sea of off topic comments to get to the meat of the discussion” is subjective nonsense. What is and is not “off-topic” is in the eye of the beholder. Censors deciding for others what readers want and don’t want is pretending to know more than can be known about hundreds of strangers posting to a public internet forum.

   The technology is there to have private discussion forums open only to members. But opening up a public forum, then broadcasting extensive criticism of Ron Paul and his supporters, and then blocking the natural response is cowardly and intellectually dishonest. It isn’t a cozy little conference room and it isn’t a cozy little tavern and it isn’t a cozy little private conversation between a few friends and those metaphors are inapplicable to a widely broadcast public internet forum.

   They have every right to make fools of themselves in this way, however, and such foolishness is fully consistent with their other political positions.

9. Scott Frost
   

   October 29th, 2007 at 4:48 pm

   I think the problem with the RedState ban is that it is a blanket ban on people who support a particular candidate and have particular views, namely, anti-war views. A well-moderated blog would ban only the specific offenders, not resort to the collectivist mindset, banning any and all Ron Paul supporters.

   The editorial comment from one of the RedState people that I read recently sounds like the mentality of a spouse abuser: “You made me do this to you!”

   The unfortunate decision by RedState has put them in danger of becoming a verb. “Hey, I heard The Bivings Report RedStated everyone from Pluto!”

   All that they are really doing at RedState is giving themselves a false sense of superiority and correctness of vision. They suffer from the same narrow pool of ideas
   and authoritarian tendencies as the Bush administration. It is healthy to listen to other points of view, even ones you do not agree with. Perhaps, ESPECIALLY ones that you do not agree with.

   I guess the RedStaters are either not up to the challenge or simply do not want their delusional, neocon boat rocked…..as they float ever closer to the nearing waterfall.

10. broadsword
    

    October 29th, 2007 at 11:06 pm

    You’re making an argument for vertical market segmentation that will preclude the cross-pollination of disparate ideas, the lifeblood of the kind of Socratish dialog that leads to *new* ideas.

    But, I guess hegemony is all the rage in Texas. After all; you gave us Bush.

    Thanks ever so much.

11. Mark Bahner
    

    October 30th, 2007 at 9:39 pm

    RedState is a joke. They have some yokel who claims to represent “The Barry Goldwater wing of the Republican Party.”

    Then they banned me for quoting Barry Goldwater Sr. (showing how his political philosophy is very compatible with Ron Paul’s) and pointing out that Barry Goldwater Jr. is very friendly with Ron Paul. (Even campaigned for Ron Paul in Paul’s race for Congress in 1976.)

    P.S. Some other yokel referred to the 13th amendment as the “13th ratification.” No wonder they don’t like Ron Paul’s strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution. Children fear what they don’t know.

12. Scott Frost
    

    October 31st, 2007 at 7:37 am

    Mark — Quoting the Barry Goldwaters was your “crime?” The people at RedState claim that they were banning rude Paul supporters who were not adding anything to the conversations. Sounds like, in reality, they just don’t want to hear the truth. (Also known as differing opinions.) How sad. But it is their loss.

13. 1440 minutes
    

    November 4th, 2007 at 4:08 pm

    Prior to the banning, the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters on RedState were courteous and substantive, just as Mark Bahner apparently was. In order to avoid giving the impression that RedState was promoting the rejection of libertarians from the Republican Party, RedState had no choice but to lie about the Ron Paul supporters. The truth is that RedState banned us because of Ron Paul’s policies. Although RedState had the right to put up a no-trespassing sign, it put them in a very bad light.

14. Scott Frost
    

    November 4th, 2007 at 10:55 pm

    Hmm… Well, it seems that this election cycle is making it clear how a lot of Republicans feel about the libertarian philosophy.

    It seems to me that the Republican party will either be put back on the right track in this election or it will lose libertarians in droves to the Libertarian Party, which has been waiting for just such a situation.

    I always viewed the LP as the escape valve for some future time when the GOP became too authoritarian. Perhaps the future is now. The Libertarian Party also serves as the conscience of the Republican party and, to a certain extent the Democratic Party, as well.

    This may be the most interesting election of our lifetimes.

    It is almost November 5th…

15. Mark Bahner
    

    November 12th, 2007 at 12:25 pm

    Hi,

    Prior to the banning, the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters on RedState were courteous and substantive, just as Mark Bahner apparently was.

    Well, I would not go so far as “courteous.” “Civil” would probably be a better description. But “substantive” in spades.

    It really bugged me that someone who claimed to represent the “Barry Goldwater wing of the Republican Party” was absolutely trashing Ron Paul, when the political philosophy of Barry Goldwater Sr. and Jr. are both quite compatible with Ron Paul’s philosophy. (As evidenced by Barry Goldwater Jr. campaigning for Ron Paul for Congress in 1976.)

    The truth is that RedState banned us because of Ron Paul’s policies.

    Yes, exactly. They don’t think they can win a legitimate debate about Ron Paul’s policies versus other Republicans. So they ban debate. If they think that’s going to bring undecided people towards the Republican Party, they’re dreaming.

16. Enzo
    

    December 3rd, 2007 at 3:28 pm

    Redstate is a crap site. They’ve banned thousands of people for just disagreeing with them.

    They just don’t see that Ron Paul is the only hope for the Republican party.

    If you think any other Republican candidate is electable, you’re drinking the cool aid.

    Of course there’s no way in hell Ron Paul will get the Republican nomination. The Republicans would never allow this, but this is why they will lose the next election in a landslide.

    Republicans like me will only vote for Ron Paul or we will vote for the Democratic candidate. So long Hannity, Fox and Redstaters. You’re dooming the Republican party for decades.

17. Dimitri
    

    December 5th, 2007 at 1:55 am

    The Republicans are only hurting themselves by not embracing Ron Paul and his views.

    From the people I discuss politics with on a daily basis, I really don’t think a Republican candidate outside of Ron Paul has a chance. I know many Democrats who would vote for him as well as independents and a lot of Republicans.

    None of the other Republicans can cross those boundries like Ron Paul. Too bad the Republican establishment will keep him down.

    I certainly won’t vote for any of the other Republican candidates, that’s for sure.

18. Bill Jenkins
    

    December 15th, 2007 at 4:26 pm

    It is hilarious that the exact kind of people Red State are avoiding spreading their Ron Paul spam have found their way here.

    It gets old.